execute_query

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the read-only constraint and connection-specific execution, but doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what happens with large result sets beyond the maxRows parameter. It provides basic behavioral context but lacks depth for a mutation-like operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key constraint. Every word earns its place with zero waste, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a query execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and constraints but lacks information about return format, error cases, or execution limits beyond maxRows. Given the complexity of database operations and absence of structured safety hints, more context would be beneficial.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing the 'SELECT statements only' constraint for the query parameter, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('Execute a SQL query'), the target resource ('on a specific DBeaver connection'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying 'read-only queries' (vs. write operations like create_table or drop_table). It provides verb+resource+scope differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('read-only queries'), which implicitly distinguishes it from write operations like alter_table or drop_table. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use scenarios beyond the read-only constraint.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.